United States v. Hill, 963 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2020). Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A)’s four-level enhancement applies when “any person was abducted to facilitate the commission of the offense of facilitate escape,” and “abducted” is defined as “that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” A “different location” generally means a place different from the store being robbed, not the backroom of the store.
United States v. Bourquin, 966 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2020). The four-level enhancement at §2A6.1(b)(4)(B) for the offense involving a substantial disruption of governmental or business function or a substantial expenditure of funds did not apply to a conviction for conveying false information concerning an attempt to kill, injure, or intimidate another. The government must introduce either a full accounting of the expenditure or some accounting coupled with facts for the sentencing court to assess whether the expenditure was substantial enough to warrant the enhancement.
United States v. Cordero, 973 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2020). Section 2E1.4 (Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire) does not always require the application of §2A1.5 (Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder) to determine the base offense level. A murder-for-hire conviction does not require a conspiracy, solicitation, or the offer or receipt of anything of pecuniary value. Section 2E1.4(a)(2) is thus not a superfluous nullity.
United States v. Flores, 974 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2020). The court did not err in applying §2A2.2(b)(3)(B)’s five-level enhancement for serious bodily injury. The defendant stabbed the victim, and the victim’s extreme pain and need for medical intervention both independently supported the enhancement.